UK: The IP Year 2007 In Review: Focus On The UK

Last Updated: 14 January 2008
Article by Roger Loosley, Ralph Cox and Stuart Richards

Following our very successful The IP Year 2006 In Review,1 rated most popular Canadian article on the MONDAQ® website ( in February 2007, Fasken Martineau's Intellectual Property ("IP") Group is pleased to present The IP Year 2007 in Review focusing on IP developments in the U.K. Our synopsis of the year 2007 significant IP related decisions and noteworthy developments in U.K. law will be helpful and informative for those interested in doing business in the U.K. since these may affect your rights with regard to patent, trade-mark and copyright protection.

Roger Loosley, Ralph Cox and Stuart Richards, of our U.K. office, provide the following updates relating to patents, trade-marks and copyright.


A Quantum Leap Above Our Competitors. On February 1, 2007 Fasken Martineau merged with U.K.'s Stringer Saul LLP, a London-based firm that specializes in listing companies on the Alternative Investment Market (AIM), the junior listing arm of the London Stock Exchange. The firm's London office, Fasken Martineau Stringer Saul (FMSS), is the world's first ever full service U.K.-Canadian law partnership and provides lawyers that practice both English and Canadian law. The office comprises more than 50 lawyers, many of whom are recognised specialists in their field of expertise.

The office provides a broad-based capability in commercial law including company and corporate, commercial agreements, intellectual property, information technology, tax, commercial property, employment, international trade and litigation services. The firm has a strong reputation, born out of specialist legal and commercial expertise, in a number of specific business areas including the AIM market, life sciences, mining and natural resources, publishing and retail property. Its expertise in patent litigation is recognised by its ranking amongst leading London firms in the Chambers 2008 directory, with Ralph Cox being named as a leading individual in the field. Chambers 2008 also gives a high ranking for the life sciences team with Gary Howes and Paul Ranson being highly rated leading individuals.

FMSS provides a gateway for businesses in the U.K. seeking to enter the Canadian market or faced with a Canadian legal issue. Similarly, it provides strategic legal advice on a wide range of Canadian business initiatives to the U.K., Europe and Africa.

There have been many interesting and important developments in the U.K. over the past year. For many of our clients, there is more than just an interest in the IP law of the U.K. as many are or will be actively pursuing rights in that jurisdiction.


Possible Cost Savings. France will finally ratify the London Agreement thereby bringing it into force, potentially in early 2008. The London Agreement reduces the translation burden on European patent owners in signatory states as its practical effect is that they will only need to submit applications in one of the three official EPO languages - English, French, or German. On grant of the patent only its claims, rather than the entire specification, will then need to be translated into the national language for each country for which the patent is designated.

Software Patents. The Court Of Appeal has clarified the law on the exclusion of computer programs from patent protection in Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holdings Ltd & Ors and Macrossan's Patent Application.2 The Court of Appeal endorsed a new structured approach for assessing the presence of a technical contribution put forward by the Comptroller of the U.K. Intellectual Property Office ("UKIPO") and which should help to address an earlier criticism that the previous test was too vague. The approach is to (a) properly construe the claim; (b) identify the actual contribution; (c) ask whether it falls solely within the excluded subject matter; and (d) check whether the actual or alleged contribution is actually technical in nature. The Patent Office has now adopted this test but considers that in the great majority of cases it will make no difference to its decision on patentability.

An Early Route to Market for Generics? In a potentially significant decision in Arrow Generics Ltd v Merck & Co, Inc.,3 the High Court has held that a generic drug company could request a declaration that its product was obvious at the priority date of a patent application. If so, were the patent granted from that application to cover the product, it would be invalid. The decision therefore opens up the possibility of generic companies (and any other would-be infringer) being able to clear a product's path to market without having to wait for a patent to grant in order to bring invalidity or non-infringement proceedings.

Reformulating the Test: Considering Obviousness Test In the U.K. For 20 years or so the test applied by the courts in England and Wales to determine whether or not the invention claimed in a patent is obvious has been that laid down in the Windsurfing case.4 The Court of Appeal recently decided in Pozzoli SpA v (1) BDMO SA (2) Moulage Industriel de Perseigne SA that the test needed reformulation to ensure that, before trying to identify the inventive concept, the Court identifies the person skilled in the art.5 The restated test is then (a) identify the notional person skilled in the art and then identify the relevant common general knowledge of that person; (b) identify the inventive concept of the claim in question or, if that could not readily be done, construe it; (c) identify what, if any, differences existed between the matter cited as forming part of the state of the art and the inventive concept of the claim or the claim as construed; and (d) viewed without any knowledge of the alleged invention as claimed, did those differences constitute steps that would have been obvious to the person skilled in the art or did they require any degree of invention?

In practice, as with the initial identification of the skilled person, the courts had these points well in mind when applying the Windsurfing test. Hence the changes formalise normal practice rather than constituting a new departure or development in the law on obviousness. In particular, there is no change in the obviousness standard being applied.


Use Of A CE Mark Does Not Indicate Consent To Parallel Importation. So held the Court of Appeal in the case of Roche Products Ltd & Anr v Kent Pharmaceuticals.6 The subject matter of the dispute were Roche's strips for self-testing blood glucose levels which Kent was parallel importing into the U.K. from the Caribbean. As the strips were sold by Roche for use in clinical trials in the Caribbean only and bore Roche's ACCU-CHECK trade mark, it sued for infringement and applied for summary judgment. Kent defended by arguing that, as the packaging for the strips also bore a CE mark, which indicated approval for sale in the European Union, Roche had consented to the products being put on the market in the EU and so had exhausted its trade mark rights.

Kent's defence foundered on the evidence. The European Court of Justice ("ECJ") case law has held that consent must be clear and unequivocal. Here, the Court of Appeal considered that to even get the argument started would require evidence from an independent expert that, rather than simply indicating regulatory compliance, a CE mark was generally understood by trade mark proprietors and parallel importers as signifying consent to marketing in the EU. Kent had no such evidence and offered no explanation as to why it had not been obtained for the summary judgment hearing.

New Examination Rules For U.K. Trade Marks. As of October 1st, 2007, the UKIPO will no longer automatically refuse to register a new mark where it conflicts with an already registered mark.7 Instead, it will notify both the applicant and the owner of any earlier conflicting mark of the application. The onus is then on either the applicant to amend or withdraw its application or the owner of an earlier mark to oppose the application. The change brings UKIPO practice on examination into line with the Community registry8 and will benefit applicants by simplifying the examination procedure. On the other hand, it will increase the number of oppositions and so the costs of some applications as well as the costs for trade mark owners of policing their portfolios.


Copyright Enforcement. In May 2007, Parliament's Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport issued a report recommending a number of measures to toughen copyright enforcement. Recommendations included: (a) an investigation into reported difficulties for rights owners in obtaining additional damages from infringers; (b) unauthorised copying and commercial distribution of illicit recordings made in cinemas to be made a criminal offence; and (c) the introduction of an exemption to copyright infringement for domestic copying (including for use in, for example, portable media players and car players) but not onward transmission of copied material. The Report noted that digital rights management techniques should not be unduly restrictive as that was counter-productive as it discouraged the legitimate market.


Confidentiality At A Price. In May, the House of Lord's long awaited decision in Douglas v Hello! was finally delivered after a lengthy legal battle and months of deliberations by the Lords.9 By a majority, the Lords found that the exclusive right to publish photographs of the Douglas's wedding given to OK was protectable through the laws of confidence - OK's payment of £1 million for the exclusive both indicated confidentiality and gave an expectation that the law would protect it. In their decision, the Lords also clarified the economic torts of causing another loss by intentional acts against third parties thereby significantly reducing their scope.

In November 2000, OK beat HELLO! for the exclusive right to publish photographs of the wedding of Catherine Zeta Jones and Michael Douglas. HELLO! bought unofficial photographs taken surreptitiously by an uninvited photographer and published them only a few hours after OK's exclusive. OK sued alleging breach of confidence and unlawful interference with its business.

In Lord Hoffmann's view, "[t]he information in this case was capable of being protected [under the laws of confidentiality] simply because it was information of commercial value over which the Douglass had sufficient control to enable them to impose an obligation of confidence... . OK had paid £1m for the benefit of the obligation of confidence imposed upon all those present at the wedding in respect of any photographs of the wedding". The "any photographs" was key as it meant that the obligation survived the publication of the particular photos used in OK's exclusive and so caught those published later by HELLO!.

Competing Ex-Employees. A recent appeal case has shown the difficulties of stopping a former employee from setting up a competing business on leaving where there has been no misappropriation of the employer's information or intellectual property.10 In Helmet Integrated Systems Ltd v Tunnard & Ors, a Mr. Tunnard, a salesman for a helmet manufacturer, had come up with a new design concept for a modular helmet but, thinking that his employer would not be interested, developed it in his own time. He then resigned and set up a company to sell the new helmet in competition with his former employer's products. His employer sued for design right infringement as well as breach of Mr. Tunnard's duties as an employee.

The Court of Appeal held that, while the duty of fidelity requires an employee not to compete when still employed, the duty does not extend post-employment and therefore cannot prevent preparations to compete while still an employee either, provided there is no breach of contractual or other implied duties or use of trade secrets. Here Mr. Tunnard's employment contract had no post-employment restrictive covenants and lacked the necessary clear wording to restrict his right to prepare. The case therefore illustrates the importance of having the right contractual provisions in place in preventing employees from competing (and preparing to compete).

No Data Protection Or Privacy. A recent High Court case shows that the courts are willing to take a pragmatic approach to the application of the Data Protection Act 1988, which imposes various duties on persons that process or deal with personal data. The case, Murray v Express,11 mainly concerned an alleged breach of privacy by a photograph of JK Rowling's child taken covertly while the family walked down the street and later published in a newspaper. The Rowling family effectively sought a right to personal privacy when engaged in ordinary activities wherever conducted which, despite the judge's sympathy for shielding children from intrusive media attention, he thought was going too far and so struck out their privacy claim as hopeless.

It was agreed by the parties that the photograph was personal data, that the defendant newspaper company was a "data controller" under the Act and that duties applied to the way the company processed the photograph. Given there was no breach of privacy, the photograph was processed lawfully. The last ditch argument tried by the Rowlings was that the photograph constituted sensitive personal data on the child's race and health. The judge rejected the argument and found that by appearing in public the claimant had deliberately made that data public leaving no ground for complaint. The only breach the company had committed was that it was not registered with the Information Commissioner as a data controller at the relevant time.

The Murray case shows how the data protection rules can apply to unexpected areas of business, and the need to be registered, but more importantly imposes common sense limits on what can constitute unfair processing and sensitive data.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

THE FASKEN MARTINEAU INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP KEEPS GROWING! In 2007, we again increased our patent bench strength by adding three patent agents to the group: Alexandre Abecassis, Serge Lapointe and Lesley Morrison. Alexandre practices in the area of high technology while Serge Lapointe is responsible for patents and patent applications in the biotechnology, pharmaceutical and chemical industries. Our most recent addition, Lesley practices in the area of high technology. All of our new patent agents draft, file and prosecute patent applications before CIPO, the USPTO and WIPO.

Chloé Latulippe and Marc-André Nadon have also joined us. Chloé and Marc-André practice in the fields of intellectual property, media and communications law. They represent and advise our clients on various aspects of intellectual property law, notably copyrights, trade secrets, patents and trade-marks.

In addition to our merger with U.K.'s Stringer Saul, Fasken Martineau also merged on April 1st, 2007 with the Ottawa firm of Johnston & Buchan LLP, a highly regarded Ottawa practice founded in 1980. The new Ottawa office of Fasken Martineau is comprised of 13 lawyers with extensive experience in communications, trade and business law as well as in a number of other areas of public law. With the new office, Fasken Martineau has added a substantial capability in intellectual property in the Ottawa region. In addition to their communications practices, Stephen Acker has an ancillary practice in trade-mark prosecution and oppositions while Aidan O'Neill, Jay Kerr-Wilson and Robert Buchan practice extensively in copyright law, particularly before the Canadian Copyright Board.

FASKEN MARTINEAU IN THE NEWS. Christian Leblanc of our Intellectual Property Group named Rising Star in the legal industry by Lexpert.12 Christian is a partner in our Montreal Office. He practices commercial and civil litigation, with a particular emphasis on intellectual property, high technology, media law, communications and defamation. Honouring Canada's Leading Lawyers Under 40 from law firms and in-house, this Lexpert annual award recognizes the country's best and brightest lawyers under 40. The Lexpert Leading Lawyers Under 40 will be featured in the November/December issue of Lexpert magazine.

Congratulations to Stéphane Gilker and Marek Nitoslawski of our Intellectual Property Group who were both recognized Best Lawyers in Canada 2008. The prestigious The Best Lawyers in Canada 2008 directory lists 79 of the firm's lawyers as experts in various areas of practice. Each year, the legal directory compiles a list of lawyers recognized for their excellence in their field of practice. Nominees are selected by means of a rigorous survey and a series of interviews conducted with frontline lawyers. Inclusion in The Best Lawyers in Canada is a great distinction only conferred upon the very best practitioners.

Fasken Martineau awarded Best Integration Award by the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association (MRIA) On June 15, 2007, the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association (MRIA) granted Fasken Martineau and Corbin Partners Inc. its prestigious Best Integration Award. The award came as a result of the efforts of May Cheng, Julie DesRosiers and Leanne Shaughnessy for their innovative work in a trade-mark infringement case involving trade-marks owned by Victoria's Secret and La Senza. In conjunction with Corbin Partners Inc., the team integrated different sources of information including a mystery shopping survey which was accepted by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice as evidence of confusion on the interlocutory injunction application. This represented the first time a Canadian court has accepted mystery shopping as expert survey evidence in an intellectual property dispute.

Recognition for Fasken Martineau Stringer Saul's IP and life sciences teams. The partners in our London office's IP group are recognised leaders in the field in Chambers 2008 and the IP and life sciences group is also recommended by Legal 500. Our expertise in patent litigation is recognised by its ranking amongst leading London firms in the Chambers 2008 directory, with Ralph Cox being named as a leading individual in the field. Chambers 2008 also gives a high ranking for the life sciences team with Gary Howes and Paul Ranson being highly rated leading individuals.

THINK OF US FOR IP. Comprised of a specialized group of lawyers, patent agents and trade-mark agents, our multidisciplinary group advises clients on all aspects of intellectual property and is dedicated to understanding the technology and business environment of our clients. Our combined technical training and experience offer a breadth of patent expertise in the life sciences, physical and logical systems, software, business methods, mechanical and electromechanical devices as well as manufacturing systems, methods and processes.

We also have trade-mark lawyers, registered agents and clerks who file and prosecute trade-mark applications in Canada and internationally through an established network of associate law firms. Our trade-mark professionals are also experienced in validity/infringement opinions, availability/clearance reports, litigation and commercial transactions.

Professionals in our Intellectual Property Group are active committee members of various legal and industry associations, and frequently present and publish on topics of interest in the field of intellectual property law. Our IP litigators have extensive tribunal and litigation expertise having litigated on both the provincial and federal levels, and are experienced with all Courts at all levels of common law and civil law, including Quebec, in a wide range of intellectual property disputes.


Overview Fasken Martineau is one of Canada's leading national business law and litigation firms. Internationally, our London and New York locations make Fasken Martineau a leader among Canadian firms with an established presence in the two major financial centres of the world and our Johannesburg office makes Fasken Martineau unique, as the only Canadian law firm with an office on the African continent.

Our Global Mining Group has been ranked Number One globally for three years in a row by Who's Who Legal; the International Who's Who of Business Lawyers. Many of the firm's lawyers are acknowledged leaders in their fields of expertise. Seventy-five of our lawyers are recognized in the Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory. Nineteen are ranked among the 500 leading lawyers in Canada. Fourteen of the firm's partners are cited in the prestigious Chambers Global "The World's Leading Lawyers" Directory. Fasken Martineau is acknowledged for its particular experience in cross-border M&A and securities work, banking and financial services, information technology law and intellectual property, insolvency and restructuring, tax, litigation, labour, estates and trusts, and arbitrations.

The firm provides services in virtually all areas of Canadian law to clients located within Canada and internationally, and in almost all industry sectors. Fasken Martineau also has expertise in both of Canada's legal systems, common law and civil law, and offers services in both English and French.

Co-Editors: Mark D. Penner and Leanne Shaughnessy. Any questions or comments regarding this publication as well as requests for reproductions should be directed to the editors.

This publication is intended to provide information to clients on recent developments in provincial, national and international law. Articles in this bulletin are not legal opinions and readers should not act on the basis of these articles without first consulting a lawyer who will provide analysis and advice on a specific matter. Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP is a limited liability partnership and includes law corporations.

2007 Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP


1 MONDAQ ( awarded Fasken Martineau's The IP Year 2006 In Review the most popular Canadian article on its site in February, 2007 (see or at

2 [2006] EWCA Civ 1371

3 [2007] EWHC 1900

4 Windsurfing International Inc v Tabur Marine (Great Britain) Ltd [1985] RPC 59

5 [2007] EWCA Civ 588

6 [2006] EWCA Civ 1775

7 For more detail on the new rules see our bulletin "Opt-In Or Lose Out!" ( available on our website

8 OHIM (Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market, Trade Marks & Designs)

9 Douglas and Others v Hello! Limited and Others [2007] 2 WLR 920

10 [2006] EWCA Civ 1735

11 David Murray v Express Newspapers PLC & Another ([2007] EWHC 1908 (Ch))

12 See

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.